Was gta IV really as bad as people say?

Im considering getting it.Was gta IV really as bad as people say?
Bad how ? Performance wise - It ran nicely at 1900 X 1080 with no AA butmost of the other stuff max after the two patches Quality wise - It was the only GTA game I thought was decentWas gta IV really as bad as people say?
Bad as in glicthes and such. HWat did the pactches do?
Runs like ass on hardware that should run it smoothly, but it's a good game. It's not Vice City, but GTA fans should definitely try it. Like every other GTA, the soundtrack alone justifies the pricetag.
It's a poorly optimized game, but it's also the best game released last year as far as I'm concerned.
Great game....shame it's so poorly optimized on PC.



I don't know after the patches....but I got it working fine before and could play all the game through
The reason GTA 4 is a beautifully optimized game for the PC is that it looks way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way better on the PC than it does on the 360 - the sheer clarity of GTA 4 on the PC causes you to realize, with finality, that the lighting, and the city itself, are the true stars of the show.



And by the way, I can play GTA 4, maxed out, at 50fps on the PC - whereas on the 360 I noticed choppiness. (Have you got a core i7, by the way?)



Fallout 3, on the other hand, is a poorly ported game - why? Well, because by looking I can hardly tell the difference between the PC version and the 360 version. Fallout 3 also requires a lot of juice to get it running well. Fallout 3 doesn't look any better or run any better on the PC - which means that it's not a great port at all.



The truth is that GTA 4 is superbly optimized because it runs so much better than the 360 version and looks about a hundred times better. If you have a core i7 and you can't get this game to run well then you're an idiot. Sorry, but you are.
[QUOTE=''Charles_Dickens'']The reason GTA 4 is a beautifully optimized game for the PC is that it looks way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way better on the PC than it does on the 360 - the sheer clarity of GTA 4 on the PC causes you to realize, with finality, that the lighting, and the city itself, are the true stars of the show.



And by the way, I can play GTA 4, maxed out, at 50fps on the PC - whereas on the 360 I noticed choppiness. (Have you got a core i7, by the way?)



Fallout 3, on the other hand, is a poorly ported game - why? Well, because by looking I can hardly tell the difference between the PC version and the 360 version. Fallout 3 also requires a lot of juice to get it running well. Fallout 3 doesn't look any better or run any better on the PC - which means that it's not a great port at all.



The truth is that GTA 4 is superbly optimized because it runs so much better than the 360 version and looks about a hundred times better. If you have a core i7 and you can't get this game to run well then you're an idiot. Sorry, but you are.[/QUOTE]



Mine was backwards. After a bit of playing around I got GTA to work great. Fallout 3 worked perfectly from the go with everything turned up max.
Not really, it's an excellent game with justifiable performance.
[QUOTE=''yankeedog009'']Bad as in glicthes and such. HWat did the pactches do?[/QUOTE] they improve the performance, for me by 25% or soedit : I also remember that there was some memory leak issue in vista, which hasn't been fixed by these patches
The game is good, after Patch 1.0.3.0, the performance improved considerably. The big problem is that the game largely depends on the processor to have good performance. A Quad-Core processor is highly recommended.
I pull around 40 fps @1360x768 medium texture but rest on high-veryhigh, max shadows and such 51/100 distance draw etc.., had some graphical texture issues on patch 1.0.2.0 but now with 1.0.3.0 it gave me 10% improvement on performance and all the graphical glitches are now fixed, it runs smooth as butter :), even on my hardware lol, which aint to bad i reckon.
[QUOTE=''UpInFlames'']It's a poorly optimized game, but it's also the best game released last year as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]I agree with this.On the one hand you have a game that asks for far too much considering the graphical quality it puts out.On the other hand, comapred to the previous GTA games GTAIV is 5 steps up. Perhaps it could have used some of the silly typical GTA things (like rampages or really immature jokes and whatnot) because in the end the story and what the player does conflict heavily, and the game feels a bit... bland. Aside from that though the game is really amazing. It's highly detailed and there is always something to look at. It makes use of the map far better than San Andreas did. Despite being smaller there's more packed into it.
ya i agree too!!!.....shame on R*..!!Even on the latest patch 3#!!!the game still run like shXT memory leak + stuttering problem!!..
bugs and glitches are bad, but of all 2008 games, I only enjoy King's Bounty: The Legend more than this game.
[QUOTE=''Charles_Dickens'']The reason GTA 4 is a beautifully optimized game for the PC is that it looks way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way better on the PC than it does on the 360 - the sheer clarity of GTA 4 on the PC causes you to realize, with finality, that the lighting, and the city itself, are the true stars of the show.And by the way, I can play GTA 4, maxed out, at 50fps on the PC - whereas on the 360 I noticed choppiness. (Have you got a core i7, by the way?)Fallout 3, on the other hand, is a poorly ported game - why? Well, because by looking I can hardly tell the difference between the PC version and the 360 version. Fallout 3 also requires a lot of juice to get it running well. Fallout 3 doesn't look any better or run any better on the PC - which means that it's not a great port at all.The truth is that GTA 4 is superbly optimized because it runs so much better than the 360 version and looks about a hundred times better. If you have a core i7 and you can't get this game to run well then you're an idiot. Sorry, but you are.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but this is totally false. I don't have a super-rig, but my PC is a fair amount more powerful for games than a console and this is one of the few console ports that runs and looks worse on my PC than other games. Fallout 3, Bioshock, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Mercs 2 all look better on my PC than the console versions. GTA IV and Endwar are the only two that look worse.I love GTA IV and think it's one of the best games released in a long time, but the PC version does require a beast to get it looking nice and smoothly. I'd only recommend it if you either have a top of the line Intel dual core or a quad-core (AMD or Intel) with a GPU that has at least 512mb of vram. If you've got less, it just won't look nice at all.
I just got it and having a blast, its not poorly optimized or glitcchy but it will take an above average system to run it right. I got no probs on high settings and resolutions with a 3.0ghz c2d , 9800gtx and 4gig ram on xp. If you got anything less youll probably be dissapointed with the performance if youre into high settings and resolutions. And with this game you want high settings and resolutions... Performance takes a big hit on vista, not even worth playing it on there if you can play it xp. With that outta the way its definatley worth owning on the PC, dont see a game better. Definately worth upgrading your PC if you have to. No crysis wasnt worth upgrading your pc for, this one is.
GTA San andreas is still the best GTA ever played
Is it bad Performancer/Optimization wise, YES!Is it bad as a game, NO!
[QUOTE=''LongZhiZi''][QUOTE=''Charles_Dickens'']The reason GTA 4 is a beautifully optimized game for the PC is that it looks way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way better on the PC than it does on the 360 - the sheer clarity of GTA 4 on the PC causes you to realize, with finality, that the lighting, and the city itself, are the true stars of the show.And by the way, I can play GTA 4, maxed out, at 50fps on the PC - whereas on the 360 I noticed choppiness. (Have you got a core i7, by the way?)Fallout 3, on the other hand, is a poorly ported game - why? Well, because by looking I can hardly tell the difference between the PC version and the 360 version. Fallout 3 also requires a lot of juice to get it running well. Fallout 3 doesn't look any better or run any better on the PC - which means that it's not a great port at all.The truth is that GTA 4 is superbly optimized because it runs so much better than the 360 version and looks about a hundred times better. If you have a core i7 and you can't get this game to run well then you're an idiot. Sorry, but you are.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but this is totally false. I don't have a super-rig, but my PC is a fair amount more powerful for games than a console and this is one of the few console ports that runs and looks worse on my PC than other games. Fallout 3, Bioshock, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Mercs 2 all look better on my PC than the console versions. GTA IV and Endwar are the only two that look worse.I love GTA IV and think it's one of the best games released in a long time, but the PC version does require a beast to get it looking nice and smoothly. I'd only recommend it if you either have a top of the line Intel dual core or a quad-core (AMD or Intel) with a GPU that has at least 512mb of vram. If you've got less, it just won't look nice at all.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about - I said that what you really need is a core i7? GTA 4 runs like butter on my computer.EDIT: Oh I see what you're saying - that because GTA 4 requires a really beefy computer, that means that it's not a good port. Hmm. I'm not sure I agree with that though.